Advice to Dem Candidates re Grasso/progressive taxation

[AP]

If I were one of the Dem candidates who's arguing for progressive taxation, I'd use this Grasso thing to make a point about taxes.

I do a little calculation of how much he would have paid in taxes before and after the Bush tax cuts. I'd ask what people thought he did to deserve the millions in extra sallary. I'd reflect on the possibility that he deferred his salary in anticipation of a Republican lowering taxes. I'd compare the economy before and after the tax cuts...

Just an idea.

[dsc]

1. I would use someone like Ken Lay instead

Grasso, while very overpaid, did at least do a very good job at his place of employment. By any rational measure he left the exchange better than he found it. The same can't be said of the likes of Lay. We can make the same point but also have an element of corporate crime to boot.

[blm]

2. hey...I agree with you.

More people understand the Ken Lay angle than the Grasso one.

[dsc]

3. fancy that

sometimes great minds can think alike.

[AP]

5. the guy RESIGNED in acknowledgement that something stinks about this

Man.

I can't believe you people.

By the way, the fact that Lay was a criminal is going to confuse the tax issue.

Grasso isn't returning the money. He got 140 million and maybe another 48 million for running a public oversight body. His salary was voted on by people whom he appointed and who did business on the exchange. The salary was more money than the NYSE grosses in some years.

This is an excellent illustration of progressive taxation. Bush's tax plan might have meant that he mad 20 or 30 million dollars more for doing nothing except defering income until after the tax changes. His employer did worse and he made more money. The market generally went down. ..

listen to the Tavis Smiley report.

[dsc]

6. I didn't say he was the second coming of Christ

but he is no Ken Lay. From what I can gather he took a pile of money people threw at him. By the standards of CEO's it was probably an average pile of money. By the standards of earth it was a huge pile of money. But I think using a person who bankrupted his company is better than using one who didn't.

[AP]

7. Ken Lay is a lesson in inside trading and Republican cronyism.

Grasso can be a straight up lesson in progressive taxation.

I know, I know. Dean isn't down with it so neither are you. It doesn't mean you don't sound silly pretending that Lay is better story than Grasso as far as illustrating how the rich benefit from INCOME TAX LAW.

Has anyone criticized Lay's payment of taxes? Enron collapsed before Bush passed his tax plan, so Lay tells you nothing about the tax plan, now does it?

[dsc]

8. As I recall

Enron was still in business when Bush was pushing the AMT tax. I read several stories of that company getting hundreds of billions of dollars if that bill had passed. BTW what form of ad hominems will you use on blm who also agrees with me? So you had a daily double. You were wrong on your facts and nasty. Well done.

[AP]

9. blm & dsc: Lay tells you nothing about Bush's tax cuts for rich ---

Enron collapsed before Bush's tax plan passed.

Grasso would be a perfect illustration of the differenc.

If you think I've made an ad hom. attack, just hit alert (you may want to consult a dictionary first).

[dsc]

10. The scheme collapsed

but the company was still in court. The money, which was in the tax bill, would have saved them. Thank god the Senate said no. And ad hominem means to speak about the messanger (neither you nor Dean belive . . .) instead of the message. Incidently ad hominem arguments aren't against the rules name calling is. Try looking up things before you tell others to do so.

[AP]

11. It means resorting to personal attack rather than address the issue.

the issue here is that the Dean fans and Dean aren't down with progressive taxation. Since we're talkinga bout progressive taxation, and I'm talking about historical facts, it's not only relevant, it isn't a personal attack.

I made my point about Lay and what you've said doesn't address the issue (it sort of reveals that you don't understand what I'm talking about. Maybe it's my fault, but I can't keep repeating myself. I think other readers understand though.)

(The bill had was going to refund Enron for corp taxes. I'm talking about progressive tax on earned income. Nobody earned any money in salary after the collapse. The company was out of business.)

[AP]

12. More on ad hom. attacks

there seems to be some confusion here (I've seen this from another poster). Ad hom. attack is basically, when you have nothing left to say about the issues so you attack a person personally for reasons that have nothing to do with the issues.

Because, so often people interject themselves into these arguments, and reveal patterns of thought (or lack of thought), it's certainly relevant to the argument to bring up those facts.

Nobody gets a blanket protection from having to be personally responsible for what they say here. I f you have a record of defending Dean and criticizing Kerry on the issue of progressive taxation, and then you jump into a thread like this and try to discredit the argument, you're prior comments about progressive taxation are TOTALLY RELEVANT to the discussion. You can't wield the charge "ad hom. attack" as a sheild from having your prior statements discussed.

[sangh0]

14. I agree with AP. Enron is a distraction

Bring it up with a partisan, and you'll hear all about how Dems took money from Enron, how everything Enron did was legal, and on and on about issues that are not directly related to the point you're trying to make about progressive taxation.

The Repukes don't want to talk about the unfairness of regressive taxation, and if they have to raise straw men to avoid doing so, they will not hesitate. Ken Lay is a cornfield of distractions.

[dsc]

15. Maybe with a partisan liar

No one says everything Enron did was legal except Enron and its attorneys.

[AP]

4. You need to listen to this before you come to any conclusions....

http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgDate=18-Sep-2003&prgId=14

(This is today's Tavis Smiley show -- it's the first segment on the list)

[blm]

13. I hear ya, AP....

This could get great play if it's presented like you say. Forward your points to all the candidates that you think can make the case.

[KoKo]

16. Wouldn't it be great to hear one of our candidates address Corporate

Crime? Come out and pledge to strengthen the SEC by adding more investigators to clean up the loose regulation and outright crookery which has gone on.

They are all mostly silent.......because they need that money....sad.

[AP]

17. OK, Edwards took this up as a corp oversight issue, but not a tax issue..

http://www.JohnEdwards2004.com/pages.asp

Edwards Says Grasso Resignation Must Be Start Of Reform,
Not End
Senator John Edwards (D-NC) Released The Following Statement Today In
Response To Dick Grasso's Resignation:
Senator John Edwards (D-NC) released the following statement today in response to Dick
Grasso's resignation:

"Nobody should confuse Dick Grasso's resignation with a resolution of the
serious accountability problems at the Stock Exchange. His resignation was
necessary to get reform started, but now each of the Exchange's board members
is in the hot seat.

"Until now, the Board has been a poster child for bad corporate governance,
instead of the good example America depends on them to be. The lack of
accountability is unacceptable at any corporation, and it is intolerable at an
institution on which all Americans depend.

"So now is the time for real reform. The Exchange needs truly independent
directors, not directors handpicked by the chairman. The Exchange needs full
disclosure of all conflicts of interest. And the Exchange needs a stronger and
more independent regulatory function."



Edwards Says Grasso Resignation Not Enough
North Carolina Senator Calls For More Reforms
Senator John Edwards (D-NC) released the following statement today in response to the
controversy surrounding New York Stock Exchange Chairman Richard A. Grasso:

"Dick Grasso's pay package is extraordinarily excessive, but the amount is just a
symptom of the real problem. The real problem is that the Board of the New York
Stock Exchange has operated like a clubhouse, with no accountability to anybody
except itself. Instead of setting an example for corporate America, the board has
become a symbol of what's wrong at too many corporations.

"Mr. Grasso's pay was set by a combination of the people he is supposed to
regulate and Board members he chose himself. Some members of the
compensation committee didn't even know how much they were paying Mr.
Grasso. The absence of accountability is unacceptable in any corporation, and it
is intolerable at an institution on which all Americans depend.

"Dick Grasso should step down because there can no longer be real reform at
the Stock Exchange until he does. But Dick Grasso's resignation has to be just
the beginning of reform, not the end.

"The Exchange needs truly independent directors, not directors handpicked by
the chairman. The Exchange needs full disclosure of all conflicts of interest. And
the Exchange needs a stronger and more independent regulatory function.
Markets run on trust. It is time for the New York Stock Exchange to restore the
trust of the American people and set the right example for America's
corporations."